How to Write an Annotated Bibliography: Home

An annotated bibliography is a tool you can use in your research process that consists of two parts: citations and descriptions. For each source, you will include a citation in whichever format your instructor has indicated (APA, Turabian, etc.) and a brief description of the source, including a short summary, relevance to your research project, and quality.

First, find sources related to your research topic. A good place to start is GALILEO, which links up all of the library’s online databases as well as the physical book catalog. Create citations in the correct format using the respective publication guide (i.e., the APA Style Guide or the Turabian/Chicago Style Guide).

Read over the sources you’ve chosen, enough to get a good understanding of the research method(s) used, the finding(s), and the background of the author(s). Using the information you’ve gathered, create a paragraph to explain the key points of the source. Unlike an abstract, which only summarizes a source, your annotation should evaluate as well.

One of the most important elements of your annotations is the connection to your larger topic, or how you could potentially use this source within a larger research project. You can do this by explaining its usefulness overall, or comparing and contrasting it with other sources you’re citing in your bibliography. For example, does source A consider a population that was left out by source B? Are its authors more credible and authoritative?

This is your opportunity to explain to your reader (i.e., your instructor) why you chose this source over countless others. You can include other information that you think is relevant as well, such as what you see as the author’s goal in writing the source and whether they were successful. The analysis you conduct at this point in your research process will also help you at later stages, as you will have already examined and summarized the sources, making it easier to incorporate them when that time comes.

In addition to the short summary, you’ll write about each source you cite in your annotated bibliography, you should also write a bit of critical analysis. This means evaluating the source’s credibility and the content. When discussing the credibility of a source, you might consider the following:

• The author’s employment history, educational background, and level of expertise on the subject
• The date of publication—is this a current source, or does it represent previous ways of thinking about your topic?
• The publisher—if your source comes from an academic press (such as Elsevier, Wiley, or Oxford University Press) or a professional association (such as the American Psychological Association) it might be considered more credible than popular publishers, so you may want to mention that in your analysis

The other main element of critical analysis involves the actual content of the source, such as:

• Does the author support their claims effectively? Is the information backed up by correctly cited research, or do they rely on opinion or assumption?
• Do you notice any bias in the source, or does the author remain objective?
• How in-depth is the material? Does it barely scratch the surface, or is it extensive?
• What types of sources does the author cite? Are they primary sources (i.e., raw materials created by those experiencing the situation) or secondary sources (interpretations derived from primary sources)?
• Would you consider the source to be well written? Is it easy to follow, or is it confusing?

See examples of annotated bibliography (APA style) entries below:

Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. Henry Holt and Company.

In this book of nonfiction based on the journalist's experiential research, Ehrenreich attempts to ascertain whether it is currently possible for an individual to live on a minimum wage in America. Taking jobs as a waitress, a maid in a cleaning service, and a Walmart sales employee, the author summarizes and reflects on her work, her relationships with fellow workers, and her financial struggles in each situation.

An experienced journalist, Ehrenreich is aware of the limitations of her experiment and the ethical implications of her experiential research tactics and reflects on these issues in the text. The author is forthcoming about her methods and supplements her experiences with scholarly research on her places of employment, the economy, and the rising cost of living in America. Ehrenreich’s project is timely, descriptive, and well-researched.

Woods, S. B., Priest, J. B., Signs, T. L., & Maier, C. A. (2019). In sickness and in health: the longitudinal associations between marital dissatisfaction, depression and spousal health. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(1), 102–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12207

Woods, Priest, Signs, and Maier’s article explores the potential conflicts between an employer and an employee with bipolar personality disorder (BPD). The authors’ primary focus is on educating employers about the Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAA), and how employees with BPD fall into ADA benefits. Although this article informs employers about BPD and ADA benefits, it establishes a bias tone in the wording towards employees with BPD. Blaring examples include, ADA ‘imposes regulations on employers’ when they hire employees with BPD and employers can prove employees are not ‘qualified’ to receive ADA benefits. This article will support Byers article, which establishes a reality that some employers are biased against person(s) with BPD. This article is also helpful with in-depth details of ADA and ADAA requirements and statutes, which accelerates the researcher’s time spent in researching ADA and ADAA information for the mentally impaired.

Note that the citation has a hanging indent and the entire annotation is indented by half an inch, not just the first line.

If you have questions that aren’t answered here, please contact Richmont library staff at libraries@richmont.edu!